The only reason it would not work and never did, is the incredibly terrible distribution of stakes.
If the big stakeholders did not act like they won their HIVE/STEEM at a bubble gum machine, the reward system would work fine.
It's only because of their ignorance and laziness that services like yours were a success in the first place. When this place was fresh, your business would have been flagged to shreds before it had even started.
After a short while, the big players started colluding and now we have rewards absolutely independent of content.
I think at this point everyone can agree, that @ned picks some weird ass associates and with a bunch of them being STILL top stakeholders, this project seems doomed.
The reward mechanism is fine.
Much like anything 'game-theory', it only works with enough rational players, though.
Funny how even after all these years, people still point the finger at me. lol
I didn't invent bid-bots, you know that, right? 😉
The current system is like the platform of
National Treasure 2, where you can balance it out, even going from one extreme to the other (buying-votes -- EiP), but you can't fix it unless you find a way to get off it.It wasn't you, who started it.
It was basically ned, when he introduced a linear reward function. Then bernie started with randowhale.
...
I just find it hypocritical to first actively farm the rewardpool and then to complain about it afterwards, once you got your stash sorted.
I still think a progressive function like x^2 could solve this, as it incentivizes cummulation of votes and would encourage competition. But that seems totally off the table. And I am tired of explaining this. It was all in the code, you know ...
Most people dumped and sold their stake other wise there would be a better distribution.
That is partially correct.
There are leeches, who never did anything more than being an early miner/ ned's (or whoever's) buddy, ...
I don't know how this worked, but I know for sure: @riverhead didn't do shit, for example.